Because this is why companies pay for jepsen tests. Not because they enjoy to be destroyed in jepsen report, but to fix the issues.

This is like paying for a pentest of a treehouse, and claiming that this implies the updated treehouse with a working padlock instead of a novelty lock is in the same league as a bank or a data center.

It makes mongodb from the report a decade ago look good.

There's no prize for participation, and they very clearly didn't do even the most rudimentary testing before paying for an in-depth third party analysis. I'd say that this reflects a profoundly childish approach to software, but that is unfair to children: I remember how much testing I did of my crappy game before I submitted it to STFormat when I was 12.

They clearly aren’t the right team to be working on it. It’s best if someone else gives it a go.

Most Jepsen tests leave me with the impression "databases are damn complicated and difficult to get right". My thoughts with this particular report are "I'll never ever touch this DB if I can help it".

Yes they are complicated. But with enough rigor, structure and discipline, it is doable without breaking correctness guarantees.

Making it distributed opens a whole can of worms, which is where Jepsen shines.

Why do you care and how is it related to the current news?

> a machine-readable format

If I get a response from the OpenAI API (or whatever), the fact that the text is embedded in a JSON object that is obviously an AI response, and even tells me which model was used and how many tokens it took, then I already have a machine-readable format clearly identifying the text as AI-generated. Whether the recipient chooses to keep that when they use the text is not my problem, right?

As the API provider, I would be very happy to consider myself compliant based on this. But I have a feeling it wouldn't fly in Brussels.

Machines can read English now /s

Still, seems useless to measure tokens when you can measure speed.

This is why I have been asking to fire product owners. Givven the same input, but different software engineers working with them, they can produce different output (code).

It's worse than that! Even when the product managers inputs to the engineers are constrained for many problems no two engineers will produce consistent results! In fact recent studies suggest that even the same engineer may produce different results based on mood, if they've had coffee yet, and how near to EOD it is.

> My guess is, Zuck really likes the idea,

You made an assumption, that's a good thing to expand thinking.

> It's almost as if having a CEO of a company placed beyond the control of the corporate board is a bad thing.

You can't draw such conclusion then.

I don't see it in grok or chatgpt launch threads.

> I don't see it in grok or chatgpt launch threads.

There's some wilful ignorance in your comments. Elon Musk's businesses have been taking a colossal hit due to his role in the Trump administration and pushing fascism across the world. To say that grok, the very models that have been announced to be trained as "anti woke", as not being subjected to criticism, is beyond belief.

Please link these comments in chatgpt, grok, claude and gemini announcement threads on hacker news.